"Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

"Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

I want to add a bit to what I have written through the years and most recently in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8658 .

1. The old stuff:
Strong's H563: " אמּר " https://studybible.info/strongs/H563:
"a lamb,

"Ezra 6:9 and lambs,
Ezra 6:17 lambs;
Ezra 7:17 lambs,

Strong's H 564: " אמּר " https://studybible.info/strongs/H564:
"Immer = "he hath said"
1. a priest in David's time
2. a priest in Jeremiah's time
3. the father of Zadok the priest
4. an ancestor of a priest

"10 occurrences of H564 אמּר

1 Chronicles 9:12 of Immer;
1 Chronicles 24:14 to Immer,
Ezra 2:37 of Immer,
Ezra 2:59 and Immer:
Ezra 10:20 of Immer;
Nehemiah 3:29 of Immer
Nehemiah 7:40 of Immer,
Nehemiah 7:61 and Immer:
Nehemiah 11:13 of Immer,
Jeremiah 20:1 of Immer

Again, notice that the words are exactly the same. The diacriticals came in the fifth century-ish - " אִמַּר ". There is a ready made written Word-Play with these 2 entries.

2. Here is where Pettinato and his study of Ebla and the Eblaite language come in. In Ebla, and evidently in Sumer in general, there were many names that paired an animal name with a god name. "Nimrod => "nmr-'d => "Panther of ha'ad", etc.

"Immar-Yah" becomes " 'immr-ya". That is, "Lamb-of-Yah" becomes " 'mar-ya" => "Lord".
With lips slightly parted, pronounce "Em-Mar". The voice is used as your lips close for the "Emm" part.
Now repeat this with your voice silent until you mouth the "M-M-M" part.
"Immar" would become " 'imm-ar" which, we could easily speculate, could become " 'mar"

We already have the "Yah" part with any number of Names - "Jeremiah", from "...Mi-Yah" to "...Mi-'iah" to ..."Mi-iah" to Jeremiah, for example.
"Josiah" => "Jo-Si-Yah" to "Jo-Si-'iah" to Josiah.

If you enter "Marya" or variant in a search field, you may find a number of earnest Believers who consider what "Marya" means, esp. to the Aramaic community - https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/maryayhwh.html .

We come then to the NT and "Marya" as a divine name. It hits you squarely in the face in John:

John 1: 35 - 36 (RSV):

[35] The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples;
[36] and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

This has been deconstructed. This person, this "Lamb-of-God", is a Priest and that is what is being asserted: The Priest is of IMMER. He is not a divine figure in the manner asserted for 2000 years. The character "John" is of Bilgah, the Mishmarot Group that has committed an Offense against the Priesthood. The "Jesus" character - the Priest of Immer - follows Bilgah but ranks ahead of him. This is why "John", whether he existed or not, is important in the explication of the Story, whatever its Truth-Value.

I would not expect the Romans to be aware of the intricacies of the Priesthood without help. Help from people who knew.

" <em>Mar'-ia" has become "Lord" through the years. The deconstruction re-asserts "Lamb-of-God" but now it is Transvalued. This "Lamb-of God" (ESPECIALLY IN JOHN) is to become a new Passover Lamb, to be offered as a Human Sacrifice.

The Next Step: Which Groups were on Duty at the Passover of 4 BCE, at the death of Herod and the ascension of Archelaus?
Bilgah and Immer.

Revelation 5: 5 - 6, 9 - 10: (RSV):

[5] Then one of the elders said to me, "Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain , with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;
***
[9] and they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth."

You might think that THIS could have some relation to the discussion here?...

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

For those of you - and there are many - who believe there are Ur-Texts or Proto-Texts of the NT, there is a question: When the Betting Window closes, how far are you willing to go? The Greekies are adamant - Certain! - that the NT is a Greek Document. All variances can be explained by an appeal to variances in the Greek Model. The Aramaicists are equally appalled that not everyone believes that "If Jesus spoke Aramaic then the Original NT must have been in Aramaic."

Another way of stating this Conundrum: If Teeple, for example, is correct in stating that GJohn is a distillation of several Greek Writing Collaborators who wrote with different techniques in regards to the Greek Definite Article (Arthrous vs. Anarthrous) AND the Aramaic's version of John follows (for the most part) the Form and Style of this version of John, then the Aramaic Peshitta is a rewrite of the Greek.

However, if John is a rewrite itself - See: Teeple's own arguments over contradictions between the Posited Authors of John - then it points to an earlier version that has been submerged beneath the Replacement NT John. There was an Aramaicist Version that becomes Primary over the inferior Greek rewrite until it was suppressed in favor of the later Greek version. It should either be found or reconstructed in comparison to the Greek.

Acts 12: 12, 25, Acts 15: 36 - 39 (RSV):

[12] When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.
***
[25] And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.
***
[36] And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.
[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus

We *MAY* be getting the Historical Background here. You thought there was a person named "John-Mark"!

Plausible History:

"The House of Mary" => The Temple. Note the Deconstruction of "Mary" in keeping with the Subject of this Thread. The Mother of "John-Mark" tells us that the Original Document originated in the Temple/Priesthood*. This is, therefore, before the Destruction of the Temple.

Verse 25: "Barnabas and Saul": This is radioactive. "Barnabas" - the Son of the Father - is Titus. "Saul" is a cipher for "Mucianus". This is therefore AFTER the Destruction of the Temple - "When they had fulfilled their Mission." Yeah, no kidding. The entire Judaic Culture and Worship Apparatus has been wiped out. They came back with "John-Mark" in Unified Condition!!!

Verses 36 +: "AND AFTER SOME DAYS..." "Paul"/"Mucianus" wants to take a tour of the conquered Territories and take "John-Mark" with them. THERE IS STILL A UNIFIED DOCUMENT EXTANT.

The Unified Document has also been split by this time! "Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work." So now "John" and "Mark" have been split and there is an argument over whether to take the Original Unified Document or one of the Split versions!

"Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus."
***
There is more here but...later! The Subject here is "Immar-Yah" and we shall return to it.

CW

* Not exactly completely True if a Nicholas of Damascus authored the Story. We will return to this as well.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

I had hoped for some type of response on this but - no such luck. It has gotten much more interesting for me in the last 24 hours and a new Path may be opening up. As for now, I'll Post some ideas and move on.

Acts 15: 38 (RSV):

[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.

I believe that there might be mischief here but I prolly cannot prove it. The mischief starts with "Location, Location, Location". Josephus has the most obvious example with the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus pitching camp at "Shechem" in his fight against Alexander Jannaeus. Shechem is near Gerizim where the "Other Temple" is located. This Section gets placed in Mark 13 and rewritten into the "Futurized" Great Tribulation.

"Pamphylia" appears to be somewhat close to "Lycia", where Mucianus took an "Honorable Banishment" during Claudius' reign, according to Pliny. The language here is somewhat opaque and I plead guilty to reading it in such a manner.

The interesting thing is that "John" does appear to travel to the conquered territories in Acts. "Mark" is mentioned 4 times in Acts, "John called Mark" (with variants) 3 times and Barnabas taking "Mark" with him for the fourth mention.

"John" is mentioned 24 times and it is interesting to consider the times when "John" could be considered a written book as opposed to a person. Then, there is:

John 13: 13 (RSV):

[13] Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphyl'ia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem

The Character "John" is certainly mentioned:

John 13: 24 - 25 (RSV):

[24] Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
[25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, `What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.'

As explicit as could possibly be, without giving away the Original: "John" is of Bilgah. The "Jesus" character is of Immer. His name has been rewritten, however. Can we discover what it was?
***
The importance of Teeple, as I discover more and more each day, is that his work on GJohn was based on photographs of the earliest extant versions of John that we have. It does appear as if there were a small group of people who contributed Sections from their own pens using the Greek Language as written in the manner to which each of them were accustomed. Names were Arthrous or Anarthrous, according to style and personal preference. Use of specific linguistic features aided in the separation of Sections pointing to different Authors:

Howard Teeple, The Literary Origins of the Gospel of John, pp. 147 - 148:

"Some of the speech material definitely comes from a written  source. It contains linguistic features not found in the writing of either the editor or the redactor. One feature in particular is prevalent enough and distinctive enough to prove the existence of a source G: the possessive adjective, with the article repeated with both the adjective and the noun occurs in John 29 times and every occurrence is in G..."

Linguistic Archaeology.

Teeple finds that there are arguments from the Authors that were offered to counter Jewish objections to "Jesus". The more-or-less final Author was the Redactor and he wrote no later than around 125:

"Therefore E [The Editor] probably wrote around A. D. 100 - 110, and R [Redactor] probably around 125 - 135" (pp. 152 - 153).

This is in agreement with what we know radiologically and I certainly don't disagree.

Therefore the John we have should be considered much different from a "John Document" taken from Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Temple. The same is True for the Book of Mark since the "Empty Tomb Motif" has been incorporated into Mark and written (Mostly?) into its Chiastic Form.
***
What then of the "Lamb-of-God" found in John?

Teeple again:

"R
28 These things happened in Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John [arth.] was baptizing. 29 On the morrow he sees [blepo] Jesus [arth.] coming to [pros] him, and he says, "Behold [ide] the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world [expansion of v. 36]    30 This one is (he) about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who was ahead of me because he was first of me. ' ["On the morrow" spoils the three-day chronology in S: 1:19, 35; 2:1.]"

The Redactor appears to have placed the "Expansion of v. 36" ahead of the first placement of "Lamb-of-God":

"S
35 On the morrow ["again" is not in P75] John [arth.] stood and  two of his disciples [comp. subj., s. verb], 36 and looking at  [emblepō] Jesus [arth.] walking, he says, "Behold [ide] the  Lamb of God." 37 The two disciples heard him speak and followed Jesus [arth.]. 38 Jesus [arth.] turned, and ..."

The "S" Source (p. 143):

"S
The S source was not written very early. In 11:48 it alludes to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in A. D. 70. In various passages S displays the influence of the Gospel of Mark and possible the Gospel of Matthew. Since Mark was written after A. D. 75, S is later that that date.

The author was familiar with Jewish Christianity, for he incorporates some of its terms and ideas. In S Jesus is the messianic Prophet (4: 19; 6: 14; 7: 40), while the Baptist is not (1: 21). Jesus, like Hebrew and Hellenistic pagan prophets, has extra-ordinary knowledge, and this is a cause of belief that he is the Messiah (4: 29, 42). Jesus is human, "the son of Joseph" (1: 45). Peter's name is his original, Hebrew name, "Simon." Jesus is addressed as a Jewish teacher, "Rabbi... "
***
In all of this "Lamb-of-God" appears as if Un-Transvalued and this realization is most odd to me. The use of "Marya" in the Peshitta points to someone knowing the derivation of the term. The use of "Mary", "Miriam", "Martha" and the like also points to knowledge of the Term.

What gives?

The purpose of "Immer"/"Immar" is as Obvious as it is Hidden. As soon as "Jesus" is the creator of all things in John 1, the Word-Play is completely obliterated. "Lamb" is given 30 times in Revelation and for 2000 years there has been only one (Transvalued) meaning.
***
We are faced then with an interesting choice. The names in Sumer matched an animal name with a god name. "nmr-d" becomes "Nimrod" 1000 years later. " 'mmr-Yah" becomes "Lamb-of-God" or, eventually, "Lord".

This, however may be considered a Technical Name. "Look everyone, it's the Good Doctor", we might say. "Hey Coach, how'ya doin'?"

Is the Priest named "Immar-Yah"? Or, perhaps, the Priest is given a Title as a Leader of a Mishmarot Priesthood Group?

In Matthew, the "Realm of Heaven" may refer to a Real, Physical Place, a room probably next to the Temple, where basically only the Priests could enter. I have outlined this elsewhere. It was a place where you had to stand. If you wanted to sit, you had to go through the door to the "Sitting Area". It may have been another separate room, perhaps in Antonia.

The Original, submerged in the rewrites of Mark and John, had a number of Plays-on-Words. "Lamb-of-God" was certainly one.
Name or Title?

CW
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by lsayre »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:33 pm
The Original, submerged in the rewrites of Mark and John, had a number of Plays-on-Words. "Lamb-of-God" was certainly one.
Name or Title?

CW
Since there is often a twist to your train of thought, I'm going with "Name", although the progressional logic of your build-up seems to lean toward "Title".
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you VERY MUCH, lsayre!
I tend to agree. The Inversion of Meaning here would be more easily seen with our Priest having a NAME as of old.
Indeed, the importance of the "NAME of 'Jesus'", so often given in the NT, may be the Push needed to go with "Name".
More later - "What would Nicholas of Damascus say?"

CW
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by lsayre »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:25 am Thank you VERY MUCH, lsayre!
I tend to agree. The Inversion of Meaning here would be more easily seen with our Priest having a NAME as of old.
Indeed, the importance of the "NAME of 'Jesus'", so often given in the NT, may be the Push needed to go with "Name".
More later - "What would Nicholas of Damascus say?"

CW
Herakles?
https://www.wilmingtonfavs.com/holy-gho ... demus.html
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

lsayre --

1. I'm reading your suggested article with some slow moments. The support material states that this may be a 4th century construction. That's OK but for most of the Boilerplate, the Standard Interpretations hold: There are people who existed and had the characteristics they appeared to have - No Symbolic Assignments allowed. As I find stuff, I might Post on it but as I say, I'm going slow.

2. In another Post, I brought up "Ptolemy", brother of Nicholas of Damascus. This angle might be the Background needed to understand the Origins of the NT:

Nicholas is the Curious Character in all of this. He was considered by many to be a Jew but that is not certain. He was certainly Hellenized. He mentored Herod and defended son Archelaus. He had a number of times where he argued in front of Caesar and in every case, he "Won". Anyone could appeal to Caesar but how many people would actually be heard by the Emperor? Nicholas of Damascus was heard. Several times.

Then there is Ptolemy, Keeper of Herod's Seal. We are given Set Pieces in all of this with Herod dying in Jericho.

Josephus, Ant..., 17, 8, 2:

"But then Salome and Alexas, before the king's death was made known, dismissed those that were shut up in the hippodrome, and told them that the king ordered them to go away to their own lands, and take care of their own affairs, which was esteemed by the nation a great benefit. And now the king's death was made public, when Salome and Alexas gathered the soldiery together in the amphitheater at Jericho; and the first thing they did was, they read Herod's letter, written to the soldiery, thanking them for their fidelity and good-will to him, and exhorting them to afford his son Archelaus, whom he had appointed for their king, like fidelity and good-will. After which Ptolemy, who had the king's seal entrusted to him, read the king's testament, which was to be of force no otherwise than as it should stand when Caesar had inspected it; so there was presently an acclamation made to Archelaus, as king; and the soldiers came by bands, and their commanders with them, and promised the same good-will to him, and readiness to serve him, which they had exhibited to Herod; and they prayed God to be assistant to him...."

Does anyone find anything the least bit...ummm...interesting about this? If Stephan Huller wants to add this to his Collection of Strange and Wondrous Histories of Josephus, I'll be happy to Cut 'n Paste this passage and send it to him via E-Mail for inclusion therein.

This is astonishing! It is almost screaming at you. There is Passover and The Feast coming in a week or so and Herod is in Jericho. Who is in Jerusalem to tend to Bidness if there is a Coup afoot? OH!!...I KNOW! CALL ON ME, TEACHER! IT'S ARCHELAUS!!!

Do you think, Rhetorically of course, that Rome is going to let Judea slip out of its Control? ANYONE?!??

Which brings to the Hour of Decision, read by the Psaki sisters, Salome and Alexas:

1. "Hey ever'body! Remember when Herod locked all you guys up an was ready to kill Y'all? IT WAS ALL A JOKE!!! A Jo... What a Sense of Humor that Herod had...HAS...I meant to say HAS... Just a little slip of the tongue Ya'KNOW?...?

2. "More importantly, to all you good SOLDIERS out there, I'm sure we can count on you in any given Time of Need, to follow Orders, in case anyone wants to, You know, set a Dumpster on fire or something...Like mebbe a COUP or sumpin', Yes?"

3. " 'N then there's our good friend Ptolemy, who, and I quote...'had the king's seal entrusted to him, read the king's testament, which was to be of force no otherwise than as it should stand when Caesar had inspected it...' Anybody out there in Soldier Land wanna cross Caesar?...I didn't think so.'"

Matthew 23: 13 (RSV):

[13] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Mark 6: 47 - 49 (RSV):

[47] And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.
[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;

Matthew 14: 28 - 30 (RSV):

[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

Josephus, Ant..., 17, 9, 3 and on:

"And as Archelaus was afraid lest some terrible thing should spring up by means of these men's madness, he sent a regiment of armed men, and with them a captain of a thousand, to suppress the violent efforts of the seditious before the whole multitude should be infected with the like madness; and gave them this charge, that if they found any much more openly seditious than others, and more busy in tumultuous practices, they should bring them to him. But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands. Now Archelaus thought there was no way to preserve the entire government but by cutting off those who made this attempt upon it; so he sent out the whole army upon them, and sent the horsemen to prevent those that had their tents without the temple from assisting those that were within the temple, and to kill such as ran away from the footmen when they thought themselves out of danger; which horsemen slew three thousand men, while the rest went to the neighboring mountains..."
***
"Upon which Nicolaus arose up to plead for Archelaus, and said, "That what had been done at the temple was rather to be attributed to the mind of those that had been killed, than to the authority of Archelaus; for that those who were the authors of such things are not only wicked in the injuries they do of themselves, but in forcing sober persons to avenge themselves upon them. Now it is evident that what these did in way of opposition was done under pretense, indeed, against Archelaus, but in reality against Caesar himself, for they, after an injurious manner, attacked and slew those who were sent by Archelaus, and who came only to put a stop to their doings..."
***
"Now when Nicolaus had laid these things before Caesar, he ended his plea; whereupon Caesar was so obliging to Archelaus, that he raised him up when he had cast himself down at his feet, and said that he well deserved the kingdom..."

A final note:

Matthew 19: 13 - 19 (RSV):

[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
[15] And he laid his hands on them and went away.
[16] And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"

Now, far be it from me to Conflate unrelated Passages betwixt Josephus and the NT. We are, however, CONSTRUCTING the NT. Would you even POSSIBLY consider Satire and Sarcasm to make its way into the NT? That mebbe Caesar is having to deal with ALL of Herod's chirrens and picking up Archelaus, the Suit-Dummy, Succesor to his Father, and telling him how he was truly his Father's Son?

Heaven Forfend!!! ("Uhhhh.../S")
***
The answer to the Question of Aramaic or Greek Authorship, therefore, points to an answer that will satisfy very few: It appears to me that a Nicholas of Damascus cannot be discounted as Authoring a Proto-Story that became the NT. He was, with his brother Ptolemy, the Political Control Officers for the Roman Empire. Archelaus is the Roman Stooge and he is willing to be a Party-Boy for the Empire until he is shunted aside in 10 years or so. Judea is to be absorbed and all it took were several thousand Murders.

NoD, however, could not have known the Inner Workings of the Priesthood, where the REAL opposition to the Romans and Herodians lie. After the Fall of the Temple Apparatus - and the end of Judea - at the hands of Vespasian and Titus, the Construction of the New Religion began with the help of surviving Priests who were given their lives in exchange for working the Texts into shape. Zakkai, given his life if he could Construct the School at Yavneh and help the Empire survive these threats and others left as many Clues as they could and these Clues were either not seen or ignored. The Texts were in answer to Threats from elsewhere and whether someone could compute the Mishmarot Priesthood Rotations or not, it became irrelevant since the Mishmarot Priesthood was by then Non-Existent.

Thus, one might find Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek depending on where one wanted to look.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by lsayre »

Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
From this it seems quite clear that whatever name a human who came to be known as Jesus after his death may have had, it was not Jesus while he was a living human. It would seem rather illogical for a god to find it necessary to bestow the honored and revered name of Jesus upon someone who had been named Jesus all along.
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by lsayre »

Unless the sense of this passage is more along the general lines of:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name, such that at the new name of him who was formerly called Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that the former man named Jesus (while in the flesh, is now, under his newly bestowed and exalted name, which is not mentioned) Christ and Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Immar-Yah" => " 'Immr-ya" => "Marya"

Post by Charles Wilson »

lsayre wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:45 am
Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
From this it seems quite clear that whatever name a human who came to be known as Jesus after his death may have had, it was not Jesus while he was a living human. It would seem rather illogical for a god to find it necessary to bestow the honored and revered name of Jesus upon someone who had been named Jesus all along.
Precisely. Great Point.

There is another possibility. Mucianus, Procurator of Syria, was a polyglot:

Wilson, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Names, 1878 or something:

"Mucianus was not only a general and a statesman, but an orator and an historian. His powers of oratory are greatly praised by Tacitus, who tells us that Mucianus could address an auditory even in Greek with great effect He made a collection of the speeches of the republican period, which he arranged and published in eleven books of Acta and three of Epistolae. The subject of his history is not mentioned; but, judging from the references which Pliny makes to it it appears to have treated chiefly of the East, and to have contained considerable information on all geographical subjects..."

Mucianus greatly loved Titus and, Conflating Unrelated Texts as I do, appears to have ended his Feud with Vespasian at the behest of Aides and Staff:

"...Up to Nero's death Mucianus and Vespasian had not been on good terms; but after that event they were induced, by the interposition of friends, to become reconciled to one another, and to act together for their mutual advantage; and their reconciliation was rendered real and lasting by the mediation of Titus, to whom Mucianus became much attached..."

This is the "Vision on the Road to Damascus".

Which leads us to the Curious "Baptism of John". Before more than a few of the Populace knew of the Baptism of John (We are led to believe), it gets replaced by the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". "We dinna even know thay wuz a Baptism of the Holy Spirit..."
Yeah, sure.

Domitian, whose name you may not curse unless you want to face Eternal Suffering in Hell Fire, does away with all of the Titus Worship and replaces it with the Worship of Lord God Domitian.

Some short time after Domitian is murdered, the Name-Thing gets worked out. Using the advantage of theft over honest toil, an almost ready-made Story gets rewritten. The Name of the Priest (or Title!) gets Objectified as "Lamb of God". The Original Meaning, referring to the Priesthood, gets obliterated. This "New Character" is now the Author of Everything that Exists (John 1). You're expecting mebbe a Dead Jewish Culture to compete with a now Greek Written Biography of a Living God?

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply